Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add panel to overview page to search on Missions by attributes like missiontype, etc. #124

Open
jbpaduan opened this issue Dec 2, 2021 · 8 comments

Comments

@jbpaduan
Copy link
Collaborator

jbpaduan commented Dec 2, 2021

Examples:
the mission types
testing
iceberg configuration
repeat mapping

@jbpaduan jbpaduan closed this as completed Dec 2, 2021
@jbpaduan jbpaduan reopened this Dec 2, 2021
@jbpaduan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

jbpaduan commented Dec 2, 2021

Aside: the "mission type" table appears to be redundant with the "platform type" but it isn't exactly.

@jbpaduan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

jbpaduan commented Dec 3, 2021

How do you think "failed", "testing", "dont_use", "use_with_caution", and "patch_test" would best be captured? They might be buried in the Notes file or part of the title of the thumbnail (defined in the process.cmd code), but there's not been any strict strings used, so far.

@jbpaduan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

jbpaduan commented Dec 3, 2021

The "patch_test" boolean should be "yes" if there's a patch test within a full survey, AND if that's the only thing that was done, as when the "testing" boolean might also be "yes". We adjust the vehicle attitude settings derived from a patch test going forward in our processing, until the next one, so it would be useful to know when they've happened.

@jbpaduan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Booleans we have for Mission:
repeat_survey
test_survey
failed_survey
dont_use_survey
use_survey_with_caution
patch_test

@jbpaduan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I too worry that a stand-alone file in each mission directory might get stale, though these particular status properties are unlikely to change (unless we do a lot of work on to rehabilitate a nasty survey, in which case we'd be eager to update it if we're successful).

As to utilizing what is part of our work-flow, we've unfortunately been inconsistent with recording the intentions or ultimate outcomes in the Notes files and process.cmd files. That could be fixed by going backward (not too painful, just takes time). And we can easily - and need to, anyway - do better going forward.

@MBARIMike
Copy link
Contributor

I've worked out how to display a map, table, and set of form fields for making these kind of searches using Django's Class Based Views. For an example see: https://emdb.shore.mbari.org/navfiles/ (internal to MBARI only). This can be done for this database too.

@jbpaduan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

The pull-downs are working well now on the Missions page. Someday it would be great for them to be an option on the Overview page as well.

@MBARIMike
Copy link
Contributor

Another option is to have the single "Search SMDB Missions..." text box on the Overview home page query appropriate fields now that we're populating more of them from the spreadsheets. The current query performed from what's entered there is:

            missions = missions.filter(
                Q(name__icontains=search_string)
                | Q(notes_text__icontains=search_string)
            )

I think searching the Notes text returns too many "false positives". Maybe we can replace that with a search of region_names and Expedition names, and maybe more.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants